Understanding of relational and interpretive perspective - Essay Example

?PORTFOLIO FOR PLAN demonstrate understanding of relational and interpretive perspective LEcture 2 Lecture 2 was dedicated to the introduction of concept and language to the larger scope of managing change. The purpose of the lecture was therefore to outline the importance of language in everyday life. Particularly outstanding was the role of language in leadership and by extension, management. The lecture was committed to looking at how language can make or unmake leaders as well as the people they manage. To this end, sub-divisional aspects of language were considered, which included topics like reality, power, knowing and managing change. seminar 1,2 overview Like the lecture 2, the second seminar was highly related to language with particular emphasis on relational theory and discourse of power. Generally, language was identified as having several components including words and action. This was an important indication to refute the general misconception that language and communication are all about speech word and for that matter words. In fact, the seminar was an important avenue for realising the role that actions play in communication. Action was identified to be useful in forms of language such as non-verbal communication including gestures. Another core area of the seminar was that actions in language come with a number of relations. This opened the door to relating language to relational and interpretive perspective. This is because once the relations are made in the course of language, listeners and on-lookers make interpretations of the language that is put across to them (Gergen, 1995). Two major theories were introduced by Gergen (1995). These were centripetal and centrifugal power. It was realised that the effect of this power cause a lot of leaders of the world to resist change. Further discussions on the chapter and seminar have been done below. basic ideas of discourse and analyse Discourse and analysis are coherent phenomenon. This is to say that discourse comes with analysis (Kenkzie, 2001). Even in cases where discourse is soliloquy, it is very much likely to contain some level of analysis because the singular speaker may want to have some meaning out of what he or she says to him or her self. Ankati (n.d) explains that even though there may be many definitions of discourse, “One thing they all agree on is that the analyst's first focus must be on language, and what it does in the world.” This means that the focus of discourse is on language. Norquist (2012) gives a linguistic definition to discourse, explaining it as “a unit of language longer than a single sentence.” This means that discourse entails the delivery of a series of sentences to put across a core message discourse of sadam hussein Discourse is an inevitable phenomenon in leadership at all levels. Corporate managers, parents and political leaders all use discourse to achieve various purposes. It is for the reason that people use discourse very often that there is the term, discourse practice. This discourse practice may be either through words or action. Among leaders of this world whose discourse practice are commonly analysed and discussed is Saddam Hussein. Very outstanding among the discussion of the discourse of Saddam Hussein is the political discourse he used over his people as the President of Iraq. From a very broad perspective, Bengio (2002) describes Saddam’s political discourse as one that is filled with propaganda. This, according to the writer created a phenomenon known as “Saddam enigma”. Like in the case of Saddam, Bengio (2002) notes that “under any regime, political culture is built on public discourse.” This means that the kind of political discourse that a ruler puts across has the power of creating an identical political culture. This political culture could be linked to the relation that people build towards the political regime in question. This therefore means that both relational and interpretive perspectives are represented in political discourse. Interpretive perspective allows listeners to give critical review of the language that is put out to them. It is in light of this that the UT Schoolf of Information (2005) hold the opinion that “the contribution of the postmodern Discourse Analysis is the application of critical thought to social situations and the unveiling of hidden politics within the socially dominant as well as all other discourses” Carter (2007) also writes on how political discourse relates to the relational and predictive perspective by stating that political discourses create “assumptions of symbolic interactions as a means of constructing social reality and reflexive, highly contextual and unifying nature of interpersonal communication.” discussion, why discourse analysis Norquist (2012) gives a broader meaning of discourse saying it involves “the use of spoken or written language in a social context.” The implication to this assertion is that discourse is put across to achieve a purpose of meaning among people in a social context. But how will the meaning come? The meaning comes when there is an analysis of what is said. This is what brings to fore the issue of discourse analysis. Is has been said that “discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text” (UT School of Information, 2005). This is an overall importance of discourse analysis, which is to put across meaning out of what is portrayed in a piece of discourse. It has also been explained that discourse analysis helps in bringing out answers to problems (Gergen, 2005). In fact, discourse analysis is so important and needful that it has the power of making implications of what a speaker intends about us that was not made explicitly clear in his or her language. It is for this reason that the UT School of Information states that “critical analysis reveals what is going on behind our backs and those of others and which determines our actions” (2005). PORTFOLIO FOR PLAN 2 critique literature Lecture 4 Lecture four was dedicated to changes that managers face in the daily application of their managerial duties. Management has generally been defined as the allocation of resources (Gagnny, 2005). This often comes with the responsibility of allocating tasks and duties to subordinates. It is for this reason that management was considered as a form of leadership. Just as leadership is subject to change, so is management. It was realised that due to a number of challenges including the fact that change normally happens to managers in an unprepared mind set, they mostly find it very difficult to appreciate and handle the changes. It was therefore established that changes therefore come with a number of problems that needs to be combated or handled. The basic techniques needed to combat the problems associated with changes were critically analysed. Four major principles of organisational change were thus reviewed. Specific implications for change were also dealt with into detail. Even more were reasons why changes do not work in certain instances and how to structure changes in a way that makes them work. Managing change metaphors, different approaches to change process Metaphor is often associated with change and change is in some quarters referred to as a metaphor because in most circumstances where changes must take place, there are those who think that the changes are not needed at the said time and thus try to resist the change. Managing change metaphors therefore has to do with managing change resistance. In his opinion, Marshak (1993) believes that there will often be resistance to changes because “every individual, and for that matter, cultural system, views and interprets empirical events through a set of beliefs and assumptions.” To ensure that changes take place smoothly and without much controversy, there are a number of approaches to change process that are suggested. In fact these approaches are important because “managing change anywhere is a skill and necessary for survival” (Shrink my Stress, 2012). Several prominent writers have come up with a couple of approaches to the change process. Popular among these writers are Kotter and Schlesinger (1979). Most of the approaches put forth by Kotter and Schlesinger have been elaborated by other writers and commentators as well. Six of these approaches are discussed into detail as they are reflected in the lecture on ‘managing change’. The first approach is to use education and communication. Education is the system of giving people information so that they become knowledgeable about a situation (Brobbey, 2009). To ensure co-operation and understanding, it is important that whoever the intended change concerns have a fair knowledge of why the change is about to take place and why the change should affect him or her. There is also the approach of participation and involvement. In the absence of effective and sufficient participation and involvement, the only convection that people that the change matters to them will think is that there is a deliberate effort to do away with them. But if they are made to be part of the change, they will embrace the change happily and cooperate with the process. To this end, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) state that “where the initiators do not have all the information they need to design the change and where others have considerable power to resist.” The third approach is facilitation and support. In this regard, managers and initiators of the change are advised to offer visible support to employees and other subordinates who may be affected by the change. Negotiation and agreement is given as another approach that helps in eliminating resistance to change. The only reason why negotiation and agreement will eliminate or reduce resistance is that is comes as a cooperative mechanism for securing the consent of all people who may be players in the change factor. Manipulation and co-option is also mentioned as one of the major approaches. Manipulation and co-option, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) write that “an effective manipulation technique is to co-opt with resisters.” They explain further that “co-option involves the patronizing gesture in bringing a person into a change management planning group for the sake of appearances rather than their substantive contribution.” This means that co-option entails deeper involvement in change. Finally, there is explicit and implicit coercion. This approach is however advised as a last resort and in cases where speed is essential to the change. On this, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) posit that “managers can explicitly or implicitly force employees into accepting change by making clear that resisting to change can lead to losing jobs, firing, transferring or not promoting employees.” change management strategies maslow – essay 2 David Nadler advocates for some major strategies for change that are based on Maslow’s theory. First, he notes that motivation is an important aspect of change management. According to Maslow, there are five (5) major levels of human needs. Each of these needs is required by a person in a dynamic and sequential order. Ultimately, the achievement of these needs of life results in major motivation for who ever receives the said need. Knowing this, managers can incorporate the fulfilment of the basic necessities of life to the changes that take place in their organisations. These motivations will affected persons feel cared for and they will not have any cause to think that they are being sabotaged. By extension, these people will not resist the changes in any way. The second strategy has to do with managing transition stages. It will be noted that change does not take place as an event but as a process. Each stage on the process demands that managers do one thing or the other. Nadler admonishes managers to ensure that the transition stages are not messed up. This is because once one stage of the process is ill-treated; the remaining stages of the change process become affected. Finally, it has been advised that there is the need to shape the political dynamics that comes with change. To do this, there is the need to evenly distribute all forms of support to every power group that will be identified. There should not be room for any biases. It is also important to ensure effective communication and stability in all ranks of the change element. PORTFOLIO FOR PLAN 3 social processes involved in organisational change interaction between people and organisational management styles A social setting has been described as any avenue through which people interact and relate (Gagnny, 2005). This makes any given organisation where there is the presence of one or more people a typical example of a social setting. For this reason, the organisation’s premises can be described as a place where a lot of social processes take place. As much as some of these social processes concern the personal lives of the people within the organisation, others concern the running of the organisation itself. For the latter, the kind of organisational management style used in the organisation is very important. This is because the application of a particular management style goes a long way to affect or influence how people relate socially in an organisation (Kenzie, 2009). In simple terms, the interaction that takes place between people in an organisation is determined by the organisational style in place at the given work place. The Managerial Skills Organisation (2012) identifies three major management styles, which is calls out as autocratic, paternalistic, and democratic. Generally, none of these managerial styles can be pointed out as outrightly right or wrong. The best way to judge the rightness or wrongness of any of these management styles is to use it in a context. That is, the application of any of these management styles determines whether it has been rightly applied or wrong. The simple reason why this situation exists is that each of the styles has its own merits and demerits. Experienced managers are therefore expected to use the management styles in such a way that will be appropriate for prevailing situations (Lee, 2003). Having made this point, it still becomes right to say that as far as interaction between people at the work place is concerned, some of the management styles allows for better room for interaction and social relationships than others. For instance it is known that leaders who apply the paternalistic or lazier faire management style delegate a lot of their roles to their subordinates (Kenwyn and Gergen, 1995). Clearly, this gives delegates more opportunity to interact with each other in a bid to get the jobs given to them worked out. Democratic also allows to a large extent, social interaction but not as much as lazier faire. This is because in democratic management style, the leaders take decisions and go about task with their subordinates (Antonio, 2011). The leaders do not live everything into the hands of the subordinates. The autocratic style allows for limited room for social interaction because the leader gives instructions for the subordinates to follow without the subordinates having the room to ask questions or make objections. seminar of jim and madcow disease Seminar of Jim and mad cow disease presented a typical scenario of appreciative inquiry in relation to problem solving. This argument is made against the backdrop that after the mad cow disease if identified, the first though that comes to mind is that a problem has arisen that needs to be solved. Identification of the problem is the first move, followed by the question of what caused the problem. It is always impossible to solve a problem if there is no knowledge on the cause of the problem. With major outbreak of diseases like made cow disease, proper determination of the disease has the potential of scrapping the very causative agents so that the disease can totally be eradicated from the system. After finding the causes, the need to suggest best solution follows, before the issuance of treatment. Just as in the case of mad cow disease, various problems that are associated with organisational changes can be tackled through the dimensions of identification of problem, finding the causes, predicting solutions, and then effecting treatment plan. PORTFOLIO FOR PLAN 4 political dimension to change in an organisation lecture 3 Lecture 3 focused on political action and power. It was discovered that the most abused form of power is political power (Lee, 2003). Most often than not, people use political power to stumble on the rights and privileges of other people. This is one of the common sense notions of political power that Gergen describes this as power over. Over the years, there have been reports of several political uprisings around the world (Gagnny, 2005). The only reason that can be given to this is that politicians have not handled power so well. Politicians abuse the power given to them such that their subjects get fed up. According to Burr, political action and the running of organisation should be two separable acts. But as noted by Latour, 1987, “the relationship between discourses, knowledge and power is intimate.” This means that as far as there remain components of political power such as discourse, knowledge and power in organisational running, there are tendencies of abuses. But managers who are willing to learn can live above these. According to the social constructionist relational theory, construction is negotiation which reaches consensus with participants. This is a major justification that managers can decide to put their subordinates at the centre of their leadership to bring needed results. Power should belong to participants with leaders as facilitators of this move. Leaders must therefore be in a position to respect their subjects and not just lording their power over them. story telling + seminar 5 Out of the need to implement change in his organisation, Mr. Halifax sent a memo round that his company was going to effect a number of changes in the organisation. Stating clearly that he was the employer and chief executive and that no body had a say in the present decision, Mr. Halifax informed the workers of major transfer within the organisation. Workers were to inter-change portfolio and take new responsibilities. More over, they were to spend more time at work. There was no incentive or motivation package to back the changes, especially in terms of the additional working time. Most of these workers were highly unhappy about the development. If they had been given the chance, they would have had their own say but that did not happen. As if by plan, each worker started looking for a new job elsewhere. Though his authority had been stamped and his instructions had gone through, the wrong approach used by Mr. Halifax resulted in a situation whereby in the next one year, he had to deal with employee turnover. He had to undertake new set of recruitment because there was virtually no old worker to work with. The workers had gone to places where their inputs could be appreciated. This is always what results if leaders refuse to use power appropriately in the work place. They get their instructions and authorities through but they pay for them later. TOP-DOWN MANAGEMENT STYLE AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE Gross & Levitt, 1994 argue that top-down style of management entails the management style where most of the decision making comes from the top. This is a very common management practice that has been used by several global organisations over the years. The practice of top-down style of management consolidates decision making and creates a rigid system of power distribution. There are very little rooms created for inputs from the down. This has mostly been mistaken for autocratic leadership but there is certainly more to the top-down management style than autocratic leadership (Brobbey, 2009). Once there are changes in the organisational structure, the top-down style of management can play very instrumental role in ensuring that things are kept under check. This is assured because in the top-down style of management, there is very little room for personal discretions. Those are the top are therefore able to stamp their authorities firmly to ensure that those below do not take undue advantage of the changes. The major forms of abuse in the top-down style of management are done by the managers themselves (Brobbey, 2009). If managers respect the inputs of their subordinates, they will appreciate the need to have their concerns through in times of decision making. The top-down style of management, if it is confused with autocratic leadership will lead to a lot of the merits of the top-down style of management not being harnessed. For instance leaders are likely to overlook the good inputs that their subordinates can make in the decision making process. CONCLUSION Concluding, it would be said that changes are inevitable in any human institution. Changes will continue to take place. However, it is important that managers and leaders who effect some of these changes make sure that the changes take place in atmospheres that are free from confusion, litigation and disorder. This assertion is made based on the social constructionism. There are approaches to changes that come together under the social constructionism factor. These approaches include critical psychology, deconstruction, discourse analysis and post structuralism. I have also come to appreciate through the module that all individuals within a given organisation has various roles to play in times of change and in order to effect change. For instance learning about the relational perspective has created a new paradigm of viewing events and situations. Because social constructionism generally concerns how people get along with each other, it will always be expected that changes take place in an atmosphere that is characterised by cooperation and consensus understanding so that managers and their subordinates can live happily after changes are effected. Personality has to do with the identity that is given to a person (Gergen, 1995). This personality may not be determined by whoever it is inferred upon but it is given based on a number of characteristic attitude and behaviour meted out to people around you. It is for this reason that there is the possibility that the personality of two people are considered opposite and crashing. Social constructionists argue that personality is fixed. In this case, a careful scrutiny shall be done using existing models and approaches to test the personality of different people to ascertain that indeed personality is fixed and cannot be changed. Should the assertion that personality is fixed be accepted to be true, then there is a lot of implications to the belief in personality clash. The major implication would be that people with personality clash can co-exist peacefully (Price, 2009) In our everyday working environment, we do not have the power to choose whom we work with and whom to avoid (Price, 2009). This means that there should be the possibility of working with people of all kinds of personalities; whether their personality clash with ours or not. We may not have the same views as other but it should be possible to co-exist with them peaceful. If this is so, then changes that result in the bringing in of new set of co-workers should not be a problem for existing workers at all. It is always important to appreciate the qualities of people we come across at the work place and learn to add to what they have so that together, we can achieve success. REFERENCES Antaki C, (n.d.). The Basic Ideas of Discourse Analysis, [Online] http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/ttlecture10DA1.htm [Accessed March 4, 2012] Antonio T. A, 2011, Change Complexities, Amsterdam: University Press Limited Bengio O, 2002, Saddam’s Word, Oxford: Oxford University Press Brobbey Y., 2009, Today’s Manager in a Complex Changing Environment, Cairo: Saunders Publications Carter K, 2007, Relational concept that is negotiated by participants - Interpretive approaches to interpersonal communication, New York: Mick Presnell D. E. P. Schultheiss. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance. Volume 7, Number 3, 191-201, DOI: 10.1007/s10775-007-9123-7. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q2l58694836m2413/ Gagnny N. A, 2005, Managers and Change, Ontario: Academy Printing Press Gross R & Levitt N, 1994, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Kenkzie G. G, 2001, Modern Management Practices, Durban: Corporate Press Limited Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979, Six Change Approaches, [Online] http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_kotter_change_approaches.html [Accessed February 29, 2012] Lee J., 2003, Managing Change, Tokyo: Amsdem Printing House Marshak R. J. 1993, Managing the metaphors of change, [Online] http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-14507563/managing-metaphors-change.html [Accessed March 1, 2012] Norquist R, 2012. Discourse. [Online] http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/discourseterm.htm [Accessed March 2, 2012] Price, G, 2009, Diagnostic Changes in Contemporary Business Environment, Accra: Legon University Press Shrink my Stress, 2012, ‘Managing Change in the Workplace with Teamwork and Motivation’ [Online] http://www.shrink-my-stress.com/managingchangeintheworkplace.html [Accessed March 2, 2012] The Managerial Skills Organisation, 2012, Exploring Different Management Styles, [Online] http://www.managerialskills.org/management-styles/ [Accessed March 1, 2012] UT School of Information, 2005, Discourse Analysis. [Online] http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm [Accessed February 28, 2012] Read More